Total Value Statement

[local 12 proud]

There's nothing ulterior about it. They've made it clear that their goal is to make up for the losses from the insured by charging more to the uninsured. Sorta like using $2,100 passengers to offset the $210 passengers.

DUH!!!!! :huh: for the most part the uninsured dont pay for thier medical expenses, hence medical insurance skyrockets and the tax payer gets to foot the bill.

 

[mweiss]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here. WHO are the "uninsured" that AA is charging for? Why are they charging more, and to whom, for uninsured people who are not on their insurance plan?

Methinks there was a miscommunication somewhere regarding the antecedent of "they." I was referring to those providing treatment, not AA. Since you meant something else by "they," perhaps you can enlighten me as to the gist of your "ulterior motive" reference?

DUH!!!!! for the most part the uninsured dont pay for thier medical expenses, hence medical insurance skyrockets and the tax payer gets to foot the bill.

Um...actually, the two are somewhat mutually exclusive. The taxpayer may, indeed, foot the bill, but if so does so to the exclusion of the medical insurance profession. Trust me, it ain't the ones who are paying the premiums that are subsidizing the uninsured.

 

[Wretched Wrench]

Ok, well now that I've physically sat down with someone and looked at their total value statement, it wasn't hard to figure out what was going on.

She was questioning why the amount shown for her medical was so high - in fact, almost 39,000.00 and it was a good question.

So, we got out all of her statements received from United Health Care over the past year, along with one vision statement and two dental, and started doing the math. The figure shown in the value statement was not what was actually PAID, but the figure shown was what was BILLED. Once we applied all of the allowable amounts that were actually paid for medical services, the 39K figure came all the way down to $16,423.00 There is a huge difference when you have a laboratory bill of around 560.00 and the allowable amount is like 72.00. However, that 560.00 figure is more impressive on a value statement.

By using the amount BILLED rather than the amount actually paid, an employee's cost to the company is actually being artificially inflated to the point that yes, when the time comes for the company to stand good on their word and return salaries to pre concession levels, this stuff will be thrown out there for all to see as to why the company can't keep it's word.

In other words, it's a crock of ####! Who in their right mind authorized the waste of company time and resources to come up with this mess?

Wing---good job on the investigation. When I posted the topic, I considered making some comment about AA counting everything except the paper towels we used washing up, but decided that would be too negative and might offend the claque of company cheerleaders here.

Turns out adding in the cost of the paper towels would have been more honest and upfront than what they are doing with the medical expenses.

 

[WingNaPrayer]

Let them lead all the cheers they want. Its rare to find an occasion when truth isn't stranger than fiction, and this one fits.

Sure, I understand showing the amounts billed on insurance claims, but what would have gone a long way from giving the company a black eye would have been for them to show each employee what their negotiating and buying power was able to save in medical expenses in the long run.

Everyone knows that medical expenses are over inflated because insurance companies refuse to pay, but carrying that over-inflation into a statement to an employee in an attempt to show that employee that they are costing the company all this money when the figures are false to begin with is purely unconscionable!

Whoever came up with this new flavor of kool-aid needs to be drug tested, and at these prices . . . .TWICE!

 

[LaBradford22]

Everyone knows that medical expenses are over inflated because insurance companies refuse to pay, but carrying that over-inflation into a statement to an employee in an attempt to show that employee that they are costing the company all this money when the figures are false to begin with is purely unconscionable!

Wing - I think there is a disconnect here. What an employee costs to the company is one thing. The value that the employee receives from the company is another.

When computing what the employee costs to the company, you are correct to say that the amount actually paid for medical claims would be the right number.

However, I don't think that's what the company is trying to convey.

What the company IS trying to convey (as I read it, anyway) is the value that employees receive as a result of being employed with the company. In that sense, the amount billed is the correct amont because, as mweiss pointed out, that is the amount that the employee would pay sans insurance and the collective buying power of a large employer.

 

[orwell]

Ok, well now that I've physically sat down with someone and looked at their total value statement, it wasn't hard to figure out what was going on.

She was questioning why the amount shown for her medical was so high - in fact, almost 39,000.00 and it was a good question.

So, we got out all of her statements received from United Health Care over the past year, along with one vision statement and two dental, and started doing the math. The figure shown in the value statement was not what was actually PAID, but the figure shown was what was BILLED. Once we applied all of the allowable amounts that were actually paid for medical services, the 39K figure came all the way down to $16,423.00 There is a huge difference when you have a laboratory bill of around 560.00 and the allowable amount is like 72.00. However, that 560.00 figure is more impressive on a value statement.

By using the amount BILLED rather than the amount actually paid, an employee's cost to the company is actually being artificially inflated to the point that yes, when the time comes for the company to stand good on their word and return salaries to pre concession levels, this stuff will be thrown out there for all to see as to why the company can't keep it's word.

In other words, it's a crock of ####! Who in their right mind authorized the waste of company time and resources to come up with this mess?

Agent group - it's time to put pressure on the CWA and get a vote going. If they won't do it, then dump them for a union who DOES want to add about 20,000 plus dues paying members in the blink of an eye!

So she could have afforded a measly 16 grand but not the "crock" figure of $39,000, is that it? IE $16,000 worth of medical benefits are not privileges, but, quite simply, RIGHTS to which she's entitled as an employee of a business in a market-based society, right? Perhaps you'd concede that $39,000 worth of benefits would be a true benefit, but not something south of $20,000. Does that about sum up your 'tude?

Well done! You've unearthed a colossal conspiracy. You should approach Mike Moore about doing a movie on these developments.

 

[jimntx]

When computing what the employee costs to the company, you are correct to say that the amount actually paid for medical claims would be the right number.

However, I don't think that's what the company is trying to convey.

What the company IS trying to convey (as I read it, anyway) is the value that employees receive as a result of being employed with the company.

Well, if the company played the game ethically, you would be correct. However, when the company wants to take something away they use the lower number to reduce the amount they have to credit to the employees. If the employees want that thing back, the company always claims the higher number as the cost.

For instance, during the concession "negotiations"--and I put the word in quotes deliberately, because our union did no negotiating in the real sense of the word--the company valued a particular work rule at $6mil. Our union conceded that work rule. The working f/as went orbital over this. The company said, "Fine. If you want that rule back, you have to concede something else. By the way, the cost of that rule to the company is $12mil; so, you have to come up with a new concession in that amount."

So, I'm sure if we were conceding medical benefits, the company would use the actual amount paid out which is lower than the "computed and imputed" value of the benefit. If we were trying to get a medical benefit, the company would use the imputed value which is higher.

 

[WingNaPrayer]

I thought I spelled it out clearly when I inferred that I understood that the higher value was what the company was claiming they were able to negotiate from.

Sure, the amount billed is not what is paid by AA, nor is it the amount that is paid by ANY company that uses the same plan purchased from United Health Care.

It is still unfair to show the amount in actual dollars. It should be accurately reported to the employee the exact amount that was paid, not the amount the employee would have paid had they not bought the healthcare plan that AA was offering, or had negotiated for.

The plan is not unique, but AA's way of reporting it's value appears to be. I've done the math and it is quite clear that AA is attempting to put forth a figure as an amount paid on behalf of an employee that wasn't actually paid. The amount paid was actually significantly less, the value for the amount paid is indeed higher, but it doesn't represent any actual funds paid.

Therfore, the figures are flawed, and I still assert that they are flawed for an underlying purpose.

If my explanation of how I see it is not understandable to some, then so be it, it's the best I can do, and my analogy of how AA is reporting the "total value statement" is correct.

 

[Oneflyer]

The idea that the Total Value Statement is somesort of management conspiracy to drive more consessions is so laughable and assinine its difficult to comprehend.

1. Most likely the reason AA put it together is because AA is suffering from terrible lower management level attrition because the pay for most analyst level personnel is well behind other similiar size companies. The point is to show the extras that AA provides. Personnally, I don't think they're that great, average at best.

2. A second reason is to show union members that their benefits are real and have a tangable value.

3. For the "why is the company authorizing the kind of expendature" crowd, let me assure you this didn't cost a lot of money. It is clearly just a download of some kind from a centralized HR database.

4. The TVS page clearly says medical bills "paid" can some other than Wing verify that the compensation amount is billed? I'm guessing that if what Wing says is true AA would quickly correct the issue (quickly in AA terms, meaning it may take 3-4 months).

 

[LiveInAHotel]

I'm sure we will see more cuts. After all Carty showed Arpey how to screw us over.

I think the entire airline industry is in for a loooooooooooooong ride. The fuel prices are sky high and it sucks! AA management also sucks!

I think if US goes under we will see a big change in this industry. If UA goes under we will see a bigger change.

 

[WingNaPrayer]

I think if US goes under we will see a big change in this industry. If UA goes under we will see a bigger change.

If UA goes under, AA will be in for the ride of a lifetime. Gawd help them if some LCC swoops in and picks up UA assets at bargain basement prices and decides to use the equipment and routes to drive AA into quick and final bankruptcy death.

If USAir goes under, it's going to be an east coast free4all watching the carriers trip over each other trying to gobble up the market. The hole they would leave would force the DOT to look the other way while carriers quickly dust off their desert fleets and move in for the kill, er, I mean . . . to fill the void.

 

[WingNaPrayer]

4. The TVS page clearly says medical bills "paid"

They can "say" whatever they like, but in one instance, I've seen the proof that it's wrong so my opinion won't change. In a company the size of AA, where there is one discrepency, there is a hundred, where there is a hundred, there is a thousand, and . . . .

Don't worry, if I find out that it's different, or that I'm mis-reading something somewhere (which is unlikely) I'll come back and eat crow on the issue but for now, the numbers do speak for themselves.

 

[jimntx]

They can "say" whatever they like, but in one instance, I've seen the proof that it's wrong so my opinion won't change. In a company the size of AA, where there is one discrepency, there is a hundred, where there is a hundred, there is a thousand, and . . . .

Don't worry, if I find out that it's different, or that I'm mis-reading something somewhere (which is unlikely) I'll come back and eat crow on the issue but for now, the numbers do speak for themselves.

Well, start polishing the silverware and washing the good china, Wing. You want to consume that crow in an elegant setting and in a gracious manner. We have already been told that we are laughable and asinine (note to others: there is only 1 S in asinine) for even suggesting that the company's motives are less than pure. Evidently, you are allowing yourself to get confused by facts again. Just stop it.

Remember, when the facts do not fit the theory, they must be discarded. (Rule 1 in Business Management 101. )

 

[Oneflyer]

What is amazing is that with so many things wrong with AA all you guys can come up with is "management is stealing from us and lies to us". There are tons of things that Arpey and crew are doing poorly, you union guys are too blinded by your anger to see them. Of course, you could hire a financial analyst or a consultant to tell you what they are but when they told you something you didn't want to hear you would just claim they were lying and in bed with big bad management.

 

[jimntx]

What is amazing is that with so many things wrong with AA all you guys can come up with is "management is stealing from us and lies to us". There are tons of things that Arpey and crew are doing poorly, you union guys are too blinded by your anger to see them. Of course, you could hire a financial analyst or a consultant to tell you what they are but when they told you something you didn't want to hear you would just claim they were lying and in bed with big bad management.

And you are a licensed therapist where? With your psychic abilities whatever you do, I'm sure your talents are totally wasted.